Agendas, reports and minutes

Minute of Meeting of the South Planning Applications Committee held in the Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 11 April 2017 at 10.30 am.

Committee Members Present:

Mr R Balfour, Mrs C Caddick (substitute) (excluding item 6.3), Mr B Clark (excluding items 5.1 and 6.7), Mr J Crawford, Mrs M Davidson (excluding items 6.3 and 6.7), Mr D Fallows, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr D Kerr, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr, Mr H Wood

Officials in attendance:

Ms N Drummond, Area Planning Manager South/Major Developments
Mr M MacLeod, Head of Planning and Environment
Mr D Mudie, Team Leader
Mr M Clough, Senior Engineer, Transport Planning
Mr K Gibson, Principal Planner
Ms L Prins, Principal Planner
Mr S Hindson, Acting Principal Planner
Mr G Stuart, Forestry Officer
Ms S Blease, Principal Solicitor – Regulatory Services (Clerk)
Mrs K Lyons, Principal Solicitor – Planning
Mr S Taylor, Administrative Assistant

Mr J Gray in the Chair

Preliminaries

The Chairman confirmed that the meeting would not be filmed and webcast due to a technical fault.

Business

1. Apologies for Absence 
Leisgeulan

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Mr A Baxter, Mr A Duffy, Mr M Green, Mr R Laird, Mr T Prag, Ms J Slater and Ms K Stephen.

2. Declarations of Interest 
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

None

3. Confirmation of Minutes
Dearbhadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been circulated for confirmation as a correct record the minute of the Committee meeting held on 28 February 2017 which was APPROVED.

4. Major Applications
Iarrtasan Mòra

There had been circulated Report No PLS/021/17 by the Head of Planning and Environment which provided a summary of all cases within the “Major” development category currently with the Planning and Development Service for determination.

The Committee NOTED the current position.

5. Continued Item
Cuspairean a' Leantainn                                                                                                 

5.1
Applicant: Daviot Farms (16/05097/FUL) (PLS/014/17)
Location: Land NE of Birch View, Daviot, Inverness (Ward 13)
Nature of Development: Erection of 2 steel frame buildings to form offices and agricultural store (retrospective).
Recommendation: Grant

There had been re-circulated Report No PLS/014/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

A site visit had taken place earlier that morning, attended by Mr R Balfour, Mrs C Caddick, Mr J Crawford, Mr D Fallows, Mrs M Davidson, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr D Kerr, Mr B Lobban, Mr T MacLennan, Mr F Parr and Mr H Wood.  Only those members who had attended the site visit and were present at the meeting took part in the determination of the application.

Mrs N Drummond presented the report and recommendation, during which she advised that, since deferral of the application for a site visit to be arranged, planning officers had written to the applicant encouraging them to submit a masterplan to provide clarification of future construction and business plans for the application site.  It was confirmed that an indicative masterplan had been provided by the applicant but that this was currently illustrative only of their current plans. 

Mrs Drummond also recommended an amendment to conditions 1 and 2 to include, as permitted use, agricultural storage associated with Daviot Farm’s off-site agricultural contracts.  She further recommended the inclusion of an additional condition requiring submission of a screening and landscaping scheme for the written approval of the planning authority and requiring the implementation of the approved scheme prior to any use of the two units

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• An area of land located within the site and currently used for the depositing of materials did not require planning consent for that use. 
• The three existing agricultural stores had each been granted planning consent prior to their erection.
• The Planning Service had sought to secure voluntary submission of a masterplan from the applicant.  A formal plan could not be insisted upon, but the applicant had nonetheless instead come forward with a range of ideas for the site, as illustrated in the indicative plan which had been circulated.
• A separate soakaway system would provide drainage for the proposed buildings.
• The buildings required planning permission and their erection without this consent was brought to the Council’s attention via a complaint from a member of the public.
• With the agreement of the Committee, a requirement to submit a screening and landscaping scheme could be imposed on the applicant, and the Planning Service could undertake liaison with local members and the local Community Council prior to approving the submitted scheme.
• Emphasis had been made by the applicant on the agricultural use of the buildings and this was reflected in the conditions which it was recommended be imposed.  Any breach of the conditions imposed would require enforcement action.

Members’ comments included the following:-

• Concern was expressed that other buildings currently on the site, which had been designated for agricultural use, were being used to store industrial vehicles.
• The need to ensure effective screening of the buildings from the A9 was emphasised.
• Concern was expressed regarding the retrospective nature of the application and that this did not represent good practice by the applicant.
• Whilst the site had been designed for agricultural use, it had become apparent from the site visit that it was being used an industrial site and the need for a site masterplan was emphasised.
• There was potential for the site to become an industrial site, in which case the appropriate licenses could be applied for.
• Agricultural contracting encompassed a broad spectrum of business including tractors and vehicles and could be a legitimate augmentation to the business.
• Whilst the site could become a whole-selling business, the applicant was currently using it for contracting purposes.
• The site had been well-developed and whilst there was concern that no pre-application advice had been sought, the buildings currently under consideration fitted in with the surrounding environment.
• Concern was expressed at the lack of space available for bunding due to the proximity of the larger of the two buildings to the edge of the site.
• Concern was expressed that incremental changes to the site could result in it becoming a major development and discussion with the local community regarding its future use was required.
• The site itself was not considered visually intrusive given the proximity of the nearby Daviot Quarry.
• It would have been helpful if the applicant had held clear dialogue with the Planning Service and the local community and the need for the applicant to recognise the concerns with the community was emphasised.

The Chairman, seconded by the Vice-Chairman, then moved that the application be granted, subject to the recommendations recommended within the report and the amendment to conditions 1 and 2 recommended by Mrs Drummond and the additional condition requiring submission of a screening and landscaping scheme as detailed during the presentation of the report and recommendation.

Mr J Crawford then moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that the applicant had failed to provide a masterplan for the site and that agricultural need for the the buildings and meeting rooms or their intended use for agricultural purposes had not been established.

The Clerk advised Mr Crawford that this was not a competent reason for refusal of the application for retrospective planning permission as the applicant was not required to demonstrate either current or intended agricultural use.  The issues for the Committee to determine were purely issues of appropriate siting and design.  The conditions recommended in the report would, if the application were granted, nonetheless mean that the buildings could only be used for agricultural purposes.

Mr Crawford then altered his amendment to move that the application be refused on the ground that he had no faith in the Council’s Enforcement Team’s ability to ensure that the applicant complied with the conditions recommended in the report if the application were granted subject to those conditions.  The Clerk again advised that this was not a competent ground on which to refuse the application.   Mr Crawford’s amendment failed to find a seconder.

The Committee then agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the concurrent revocation of permissions 14/04678/FUL and 13/00796/FUL and subject to the conditions recommended in the report with the following amendments and additions:

• An amendment to recommended conditions 1 and 2 to also include, as permitted use, agricultural storage associated with Daviot Farm’s off-site agricultural contracts.
• An additional condition requiring submission of a screening and landscaping scheme for the written approval of the planning authority and requiring the implementation of the approved scheme prior to any use of the two units.

The Committee further agreed that, on submission of a screening and landscaping scheme for approval, the Planning Service would consult with the local members and the local Community Council prior to approving the scheme.

7. Decision on Appeal to the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals
Co-dhùnaidhean Ath-thagraidhean do Bhuidheann-stiùiridh Riaghaltas na h-Alba airson Ath-thagraidhean Dealbhaidh agus Àrainneachd

In terms of Standing Order 18, the Committee AGREED that agenda item 7.2 be considered at this juncture.

7.2
Applicant: RES UK & Ireland Ltd (16/00019/REFLO) (formerly 14/04782/FUL)
Location: Culachy Estate, Land 6KM SE Of Newtown Invergarry
Nature of Appeal: Update on planning appeal - Erection of 13 wind turbines with 12 up to 149.5 m tip-height and 1 up to 132 m tip height including ancillary development (Culachy Wind Farm).

The Clerk confirmed that Mrs M Davidson, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr D Kerr, Mr T Maclennan and Mr F Parr were the only Members eligible to participate in this item as they had been present during the determination of the original application.

The Committee AGREED to ratify the decision taken under delegated powers to amend the reasons for refusal which would be relied upon in the course of the appeal.

6. Planning Applications to be Determined
Iarrtasan Dealbhaidh rin Dearbhadh

6.1
Applicant: Albyn Housing Society Ltd (16/04454/FUL) (PLS/022/17)
Location: Land 90m NW of 8 Balvonie Street, Inverness. (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Erection of 49 dwellings.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/022/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mrs N Drummond presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The application site contained an area which acted as natural bunding.
• Urgent repairs were required to the current wooden access bridge and permissions seeking alterations to the existing structure could be included within the recommendations.
• An amendment to condition 5 could be included within the recommendation to require that no house be occupied until the landscape plan, which shall include provision to ensure that the required landscaping is carried out in tandem with the development of the housing, had been submitted and approved by the planning authority and to require that the landscaping plan, once approved, shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the timescales set out therein
• The addition of an informative note regarding noise and hours of operation during the construction phase could be included within the recommendation.
• Whilst the application site was not proposed to be a Home Zone, the application would incorporate shared access between cars and pedestrians.
• Prior to commencement of development, improvements would be required to access arrangements for construction traffic.
• No construction traffic would access the application site through the former Highland Housing Fair site.
• In terms of the matters to be secured by a Section 75 agreement, the applicant had four months from the date that the Council's solicitor writes to the Applicant/Applicant's solicitor indicating the terms of the legal agreement, to deliver to the Council a signed legal agreement.  Should an agreement not be concluded within four months, the application would be refused under delegated powers.
• If Members were minded to approve the application, the second separate application (16/05559/FUL) outlining temporary arrangements to be provided to the east of the current application site to allow for the formation of a temporary roadway, site compound and welfare facilities would be processed under delegated powers.
• Alternative access arrangements to the construction site had not been proposed.
• An additional condition could be included within the recommendation requiring that no development commence until bin and cycle storage arrangements had been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority and requiring that these arrangements, once approved, were thereafter implemented by the developer.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior conclusion of a section 75 obligation to secure the developer contributions referred to at paragraph 8.42 of the report and subject to the conditions recommended in the report, with the following amendments and additions:-

• An amendment to recommended condition 5 to require that no house be occupied until the landscape plan, which shall include provision to ensure that the required landscaping is carried out in tandem with the development of the housing, has been submitted and approved by the planning authority and to require that the landscaping plan, once approved, shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the timescales set out therein.
• An additional condition requiring that no development commence until bin and cycle storage arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority and requiring that these arrangements, once approved, are thereafter implemented by the developer.
• An additional of a condition requiring that upgrading of the access to the site, including upgrading of the current wooden bridge, be undertaken to the satisfaction of the planning authority prior to commencement of construction on the site.
• The addition of an informative note regarding noise and hours of operation during the construction phase.

6.2
Applicant: Tulloch Homes Ltd (17/00378/PIP) (PLS/023/17)
Location: Land 155M North East of Milton of Leys Primary School, Leys Square, Inverness (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Development of land at neighbourhood centre for sites for commercial/retail, residential (including special needs), community (children's day nursery), care home and recreational open space; and related road, infrastructure and services.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/023/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr K Gibson presented the report and recommendation.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission in principle subject to the prior conclusion of a section 75 obligation to secure the developer contributions referred to at paragraph 8.16 of the report and subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

6.3
Applicant: Mr James Colston (16/00912/FUL) (PLS/024/17)
Location: Land 120M SW of Fair-Na-Scuir, Arisaig (Ward 12)
Nature of Development: Erection of house.
Recommendation: Refuse

There had been circulated Report No PLS/024/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending refusal of the application on the grounds detailed in the report.

Ms L Prins presented the report and recommendation.

In response to a question, it was confirmed that compensatory replacement planting could be required to mitigate any loss of woodland.

During discussion, Members’ comments included the following:-

• Whilst it was acknowledged that Faire na Scuir was a Category B listed building, the view was expressed that the building did not fit in with the surrounding landscape.
• The proposed development fitted in with the landscape and the character of the area and would provide accommodation for the person responsible for helping to regenerate the woodland.
• The overall area of the site and the building material deposits were the responsibility of the applicant and the requirement by condition of a woodland management plan could help ensure compliance with regulations if the Committee was minded to approve the application.
• Concern was expressed that the proposed development was of too large a scale for the application site and it was suggested that a more appropriate site could have been identified that would not require the removal of mature oak.
• The trees proposed for removal were not the most mature examples of ancient woodland and it was suggested that a condition could be included to ensure that naturally occurring trees be planted to compensate for any loss of woodland.

No consensus having been reached between the members, the Chairman, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved that the application be refused for the reasons recommended in the report.

Mr B Clark, seconded by Mr T MacLennan, then moved as an amendment that the application be granted, subject to appropriate planning conditions to be determined by the planning officer, including (i) a condition requiring compensatory replacement planting to mitigate any loss of woodland; (ii) a condition requiring a bat survey to be undertaken prior to commencement of works; and (iii) a condition requiring a woodland management plan to be submitted for approval, on the grounds that:-

• The proposed development would provide accommodation for a local resident responsible for the regeneration of the woodland, and as such complied with Policy 52 (Public Benefit) of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP).
• The proposed development would support the regeneration of the woodland, and as such complied with Polices 28 36 57 and 61 of the HwLDP.
• The design of the proposed house was sympathetic and compatible to the surrounding landscape character, and as such complied with Policy 36 of the HwLDP.

On a vote being taken, six votes were cast in favour of the motion and five votes in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mr R Balfour
Mr D Fallows
Mr J Gray
Mr D Kerr
Mr L Fraser
Mr F Parr

Amendment

Mr B Clark
Mr J Crawford
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan
Mr H Wood

The motion to REFUSE planning permission accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

6.4
Applicant: Moray Estates Development Company Ltd (16/05725/S42) (PLS/025/17)
Location: Land North East of Tornagrain, Dalcross (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: Application to develop land without compliance with conditions 1 and 34 (regulating phasing and regulating noise) of 09/00038/OUTIN.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/025/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Croy Square had been designed so as to be offset from the approaching road and drivers would have to forcibly slow down through what would be a 20mph speed restricted area.
• It was envisaged that during the first phases of development the initial developer contribution for education would be towards the expansion of education facilities at Croy Primary School and Culloden Secondary School.
• The time-scale for delivery of a new primary school at Tornagrain had not changed and that figures contained at paragraph 9.1 within the report referred to the square meterage of the primary school during the first phase of development.
• The applicant would be tied down to the specific time frames for delivery and that any request to change this would require a Section 42 application.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission to develop land without compliance with conditions 1 and 34 of outline planning permission 09/00038/OUTIN subject to the prior conclusion of a new section 75 obligation to secure the matters referred to at paragraph 7.19 of the report and subject to the conditions recommended in the report.

6.5
Applicant: Barratt North Scotland Ltd & Hazledene (Inverness) Ltd (17/00073/FUL) (PLS/026/17)
Location: Land at Culduthel, Inverness (Ward 20)
Nature of Development: Erection of 82 residential units.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/026/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr S Hindson presented the report and recommendation, during which he suggested that an additional condition be included within the recommendation requiring that no other development shall commence until the site access had been constructed in accordance with The Highland Council's Roads and Transport Guidelines for New Developments with visibility splays of 4.5m x 90m (the X dimension and Y dimension respectively) in each direction formed from the centre line of the junction, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.  Within the stated visibility splays, at no time shall anything obscure visibility between a driver's eye height of 1.05m positioned at the X dimension and an object height of 0.60m anywhere along the Y dimension.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The proposed new footpaths would link up with the existing footpath on the Southern Distributer Road which contained a light controlled crossing.
• Discussion would be required between the developer and the Council’s Housing Development Team prior to the confirmation of which units would come under the 25% affordable housing requirement of the Section 75 agreement.
• Developer contributions for primary education were set out at £2013 per residential unit.
• Developer contributions for nursery education were at a similar level to primary education but were subject to negotiation.
• Developer contributions for secondary education at Inverness Royal Academy were set out in the Torvean and Ness Side Development Brief at £1900 per residential unit.
• Issues in relation to school capacity in the wider area were currently being examined by the Education Service.
• The Development Plans Team response to the application recognised that the housing numbers proposed within the application were higher than the indicative figures provided within the local development plan and did not necessarily take into consideration the 82 residential units previously granted consent.

The Committee agreed to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior conclusion of a section 75 obligation to secure the matters referred to at paragraph 8.37 of the report and subject to the conditions recommended in the report, with the following addition:-

• An additional condition requiring the developer to create visibility splays at the access to the site to the satisfaction of the planning authority and to thereafter maintain these splays in perpetuity.
• The addition of an informative note regarding noise and hours of operation during the construction phase.

6.6
Applicant: Ms Fiona Stewart (16/05720/FUL) (PLS/027/17)
Location: Steading to west of The Old Manse, Duthil, Carrbridge (Ward 21)
Nature of Development: Change of use from residential to holiday let.
Recommendation: Grant

There had been circulated Report No PLS/027/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending the grant of the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• The proposed holiday let could occupy between 10 and 12 people at any given time.
• No detail had been submitted in terms of how an operational management plan might function for the business.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Concern was expressed at the site’s location and the adverse impact the proposal could have on neighbouring properties.
• Complaints raised by neighbouring properties regarding noise generated from the occupants of the holiday accommodation might not be addressed immediately.
• The implementation of an operational management plan could be difficult to achieve as group lettings normally only occupied these types of accommodation for very short periods such as weekends.
• The concerns raised regarding noise generated by the proposed development had been over-exaggerated.

In response to concern raised regarding noise disturbance generated by the accommodation, the Team Leader suggested that a time limit on the permission to enable any issues regarding noise disturbance to be addressed could be added to the recommendation.

No consensus having been reached between the members, the Chairman, seconded by Mr D Kerr, then moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions recommended in the report with an additional condition limiting the planning permission for change of use for a period of two years only as a trial period to enable the planning authority to assess impact on neighbours’ residential amenity.

Mr B Lobban, seconded by the Vice-Chairman, then moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that:-

• the proposal would be contrary to Policy 2 (Supporting Economic Growth) of the Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan in that the development failed to demonstrate that it would have no adverse environmental impact on neighbouring areas by way of noise and disturbance and failed to demonstrate that it would add or extend the core tourist season.
• the proposal would be contrary to Policy 3 (Sustainable Design) of the Cairngorms National Park Local Development Plan in that it failed to demonstrate how the proposal had been designed to protect the amenity enjoyed by neighbours in relation to noise and disturbance.

On a vote being taken, seven votes were cast in favour of the motion and six votes in favour of the amendment, with no abstentions as follows:-

Motion

Mrs C Caddick
Mr J Crawford
Mr J Gray
Mr D Kerr
Mr L Fraser
Mr F Parr
Mr H Wood

Amendment

Mr R Balfour
Mrs M Davidson
Mr D Fallows
Mr B Clark
Mr B Lobban
Mr T MacLennan

The motion to GRANT planning permission accordingly became the finding of the meeting.

6.7
Applicant: Mr Sandy Matheson (17/00194/FUL) (PLS/028/17)
Location: Land 80M West of Grieves Cottage, Flemington, Gollanfield, Inverness (Ward 18)
Nature of Development: 2 house replacement steading development (Previous Application 15/04213/FUL).
Recommendation: Refuse

There had been circulated Report No PLS/028/17 by the Area Planning Manager – South/Major Developments recommending refusal of the application on the grounds as detailed in the report.

Mr D Mudie presented the report and recommendation.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that:-

• Whilst no formal pre-application advice had been given regarding the proposed demolition of the existing steading buildings, the applicant had not provided evidence to justify their demolition and therefore the proposed development failed to meet the requirements of the Supplementary Guidance on Housing in the Countryside and Policy 35 of the Highland-wide Local Development Plan.

During discussion, the following comments were made:-

• Whilst the design of the proposed replacement steading development could be deemed acceptable, the applicant had not provided justification for the removal of the existing steading buildings.

The Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons recommended in the report.

7. Decision on Appeal to the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals
Co-dhùnaidhean Ath-thagraidhean do Bhuidheann-stiùiridh Riaghaltas na h-Alba airson Ath-thagraidhean Dealbhaidh agus Àrainneachd

7.1
Applicant: Tulloch Homes Ltd (PPA-270-2153) (15/01469/FUL)
Location: Land 265 metres North East of Parks Farm, Parks of Inshes, Old Edinburgh Road, South Inverness
Nature of Appeal: Re-mix of phase 1 to form 63 private dwelling and 39 affordable units consisting of flats and villas with associated works.

The Committee NOTED the decision of the Reporter to allow the appeal and grant planning permission, subject to the conditions as set at the end of the Decision Notice.

The meeting ended at 3.10 pm.